72 Comments

Dead Space is stupid. This looks like a modern Resident Evil game. I also hate how they call their main character Issac Clarke, they’re not worthy of the references. What the fuck is going on with that music in the trailer?

I won’t say if they have actually ruined the series until I play this, some day when it’s in the bargain bin, but it looks like they didn’t learn the lessons from Syndicate or the other series they just shelved, what was its name?

When they say straight port, do they just mean how Dead Space 1 and 2 were? Because they were ‘ok’ though I remember the mouse feeling really strange and using a controller was the best way. Anyway, I’ll end up playing it at some point, the demo was kind of fun with a friend, but the dialogue (at least from the other main character) was not so good.

I was so thrilled when they announced that there will be a third Dead Space. I very much liked the previous two.

Let me just say I am so not thrilled anymore. From the demo it looks like a bastard child of Dead Space (character, slow walking, plasma cutter) and Lost Planet (setting, environments, HUGE boss creatures). Sadly it seems like a fail…

I know i am not supposed to point this out and thereby disrupt the perfect storm of snarky cynicism, but the game seems to have a demo (if the mention of demo.deadspace.com is any indication). So it’s not completely out of line with what the Hivemind wants, just mostly. I guess.

I’ll give them $5 for it, or wait to get it free with another game, the way I got Dead Space 2 for free with BF3. The first one controlled well enough with the mouse once you disabled Vsynch, and the second one was a solid action game. As long as you don’t go into it expecting it to be true survival horror, I think you will enjoy it. I enjoyed both of the first 2, and paid a grand total of $5 for both of them. I’ve certainly paid more for worse games.

Having played the first two games and enjoying them quite a bit, I tried out the demo for 3 and I enjoyed that too. It plays mostly the same as the first two, and those are solid games. As long as I can dismember space zombies in a variety of ways (and be dismembered by them in a variety of ways), I don’t see any problems with 3.

Also Phil Collins is actually pretty good so I don’t get the hate for him. This coming from a guy who’s not listened to any Genesis when he wasn’t the lead vocalist, admittedly, but he’s still entertaining to listen to.

I’m honestly confused about the Dead Space 3 vitriol. What exactly does this game doesn’t have that Dead Space (the first) had and for which reason it was so lauded when it was launched?

I’m with everyone when it comes to be aggravated by straight console ports and microtransactions. But the level of verbal abuse this one game in particular has been receiving from both RPS writers and readers leaves me bewildered. Is it an inferior game to Dead Space? It’s one thing to argue about those two, it’s another to be completely dismissive of it. What’s so wrong about it?

This is an honest question. Not a stab. I’m actually trying to understand if I missed something about this game. I remember when Dead Space launched and I called it a boring and ugly third-person shooter with stupidly drawn monsters, I was pounced by fans.

I can only speak for myself but I enjoyed the first game quite a bit.
I wouldn’t say it was without problems, the ending was abyssmal, for instance. But it felt like an hommage to all those Sci-Fi B-Movies. And some of the level design was quite inspired.
I’m playing the second installment at the moment. I have warmed up to it after what I consider one of the worst beginnings I’ve ever player (“look, monsters!”). There is more of a story and that doesn’t really improve the game, in my opinion.
The third part seems to have a Terrorist / Special forces thing going on. And in the end, we find that man is the ultimate monster and those Necromutants are noble savages really.
Dead Space 3 might still be a competent shooter. But I haven’t yet seen that spark of inspiration that turns a good game into a memorable one.

Honestly I’ve wondered the same thing and all I can come up with is that it’s some kind of bandwagon thing. It seems that large segments of the gaming community decided to completely write DS3 off as soon as the first footage was revealed, even before anyone ever got their hands on it. This is despite Visceral making it very clear that they only showed off action-heavy sequences because those demo better at press conferences and assuring everyone that the games would still be scary. I just don’t get the hate, especially now that people seem to be writing off the entire franchise even though both DS and DS2 were generally well-received. As a fan of the franchise, it’s beyond baffling to see everyone suddenly decide that the games all suck or that the series is ruined because – god forbid! – they add or change things to keep the series fresh. If Dead Space 3 was another game that featured Isaac clunking around in an abandoned ship with DS1 controls people would probably say the controls were too stiff or that the games are too repetitive.

The DS3 impressions I’ve heard so far – from critics who have actually played the final build, unlike the commenters bashing the game – have been largely positive. I’ll most likely pick it up at launch and I suspect I’ll have a great time with it. I’m just glad that I won’t have to put my foot in my mouth to do so.

Trying to innovate in a game is a death sentence in the internet. Add some drama like that of the microtransactions, and voilá, bandwagon time! I don’t know about the rest, but I’ll wait until it comes out. I’m not dropping this series just because there’s some snow and, oh no, new locations.

And for the microtransactions… I remember some guy from EA saying that DE3 has to sale 5 millions or it’s goodbye for the IP. Maybe this is some kind of compromise between them?. I mean, that is an idea so ludicrous, that it can only have come for an executive’s mind, not a developer.

Since nobody seems to be mentioning it, I feel the need to point out that many of the widely-maligned “new” features in DS3 aren’t even new. For one thing, the original Dead Space had microtransactions. Maybe not on PC, but certainly on consoles. You could buy custom weapon skins that upgraded the power of the weapons and I believe you could also buy in-game money with earth dollars. I never spent a penny on any of them and I never felt the need to, and from what I’ve heard about DS3 that hasn’t changed. Besides, they’re all optional, just like co-op. I don’t understand why people get so irritable about having more options that they don’t ever have to use.

Another example: “giant monsters and action sequences? Oh great now it’s Gears of Dead Space: Lost Planet Edition.” Dead Space has giant monsters and action sequences. Dead Space 2 has giant monsters and action sequences. From what I can tell the trailer only showed one giant monster, which is likely only encountered once in the entire game, probably as a boss. And yet the comments all make it sound as though the entire game is giant monster after giant spinning drill after giant monster. I haven’t played the game, of course, but I can all but guarantee that won’t be the case. Visceral has always included one-off gameplay shifts like the turret sequence in DS1 or the train sequence in DS2, it mixes up the pacing so the game isn’t a 12-hour slog through the same monsters over and over again.

I spoke to the art director once, before playing the games, he made a good case for trying them despite it not being my cup of tea. I enjoyed both the first and the second game and felt that they evolved in tune with the character of Isaac Claarke, a theme that seems to have been taken further in Dead Space 3.

In the first game, the controls were a little stubby, the enemies were tougher, some weapons felt utterly useless and you felt isolated and on edge most of the time (at least that is what I felt they were going for and what I experienced).
In the sequel, your character had been through hell but he had grown and it showed. Movement was smoother, the world felt less claustrophobic, weapons felt stronger and Isaac started talking and interacting more with the world around him to let that story present itself. Was it the same as the first game? No, it had evolved and in a sense so has DS 3 compared to DS 2

Dead Space 3 seems to be more about the action and taking control over this foe you (Isaac) have gotten to know over the last two games. You can face it with someone else now, which feels like a natural next step from the previous game.
In the first game you were pretty much completely alone, in the second they introduced more characters that interacted with you and in the third this is taken a step further with the potential for Co-Op.

Personally I think the Dead Space series so far has evolved just as it should have in regards to character growth, which I find interesting. Following the story makes the change from horror to action horror make sense, Isaac has learned and gotten stronger and the games mirror that.

Are the trailers stupid? Yes, but that is marketing, not development.
Are micro-transactions and co-op detrimental to the experience? No, and in Dead Space 3 they are both completely optional and integrated in a way that does not break the game.

Besides, having 3 games with a protagonist who is terrified of the same foe after having killed thousands of them would make no sense. Then again you could make the argument that the sequels are unnecessary, but I’m inclined to disagree as I find the setting for the games interesting enough to merit them.

I enjoyed the demo of DS 3 and am looking forward to playing through the entire thing with a friend, in preparation we’ve both churned through the first and second game, good times are had.